Former Civic Hero Now Labeled a Vigilante, for his latest use of his Revolver - Photo

L

LanceOregon

Moderator
Roger Witter is a 48 yr old man who lives next to the infamous Rockwood neighborhood of Gresham, OR, which is adjacent to Portland. Witter has an Oregon Concealed Handgun License, and was lauded as a hero last year, when he intervened with his revolver and rescued a man who had been badly beaten on the head with a hammer in Rockwood. A long time resident of the area, Witter has watched the Rockwood neighborhood deteriorate rapidly in recent years, as drugs and gangs have fueled ever increasing crime.

This past Tuesday night, Witter was shopping in the local AT&T store, when two young black males stole Apple iPhones from the store, and ran off. Witter ran off after them, and witnessed the thieves getting into a getaway car. At this point, he fired two rounds from his revolver, in an attempt to shoot out one of the front tires of the vehicle.

Witter's attempt to take out the tire failed. When police arrived, they promptly arrested Witter, and took away both his firearm and his license to carry. Initially, the police charged Witter with four crimes: unlawful use of a weapon, reckless endangerment, disorderly conduct and unlawful discharge of a weapon within city limits.

However, the judge hearing his case threw out two of the charges, and he now only faces two misdemeanors: disorderly conduct and discharging a firearm inside city limits. The local Sheriff has stated that Witter's CHL will not be returned to him, even if he is found to be not guilty.

The liberal local media in Portland has been having a field day with this story, with many labeling Witter as being a "Vigilante". They condemn him for being irresponsible, and not obeying the law.

Gun owners have been split over this controversy, with some supporting Witter, but others saying that the Oregon CHL does not make a person a police officer, and that Witter went too far in chasing after the crooks, and trying to shoot the getaway car's tire out.

While Witter awaits trial, and has been forced to hire an attorney, both of the two young black male thieves remain at large in the community.

What is your take on this? Did Witter show bad judgment? Was he reckless and irresponsible? Does he deserve to face charges? Oregon toughened its CHL law in recent years, and now just a misdemeanor conviction will bar a person from getting a license. So if convicted, Witter will never be able to get a CHL again.

Here is a photo of Witter being interviewed by the press:

iphone_theft_gunshots405.jpg



Their are many aspects to this case that anyone who has a CHL law should take into consideration and think about. Would anyone here ever fire a gun at a fleeing thief? Does a minor crime like that justify pulling your weapon and firing? On the other hand, what if it had instead been a murder that Witter had witnessed? Would that then have made him opening fire OK?

Here is a detailed news report including a video interview with Witter:

http://gresham.katu.com/content/man-opens-fire-theft-suspects-police-arrest-him


And here is an editorial in Today's Portland Oregonian newspaper, criticizing Witter for his actions:

http://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/index.ssf/2010/05/civic_intervention_with_a_gun.html


And here is one of the examples of the media labeling Witter a vigilante.

http://www.katu.com/news/local/94974914.html


Tell me, would you say that he is a "vigilante" ?? Or is the media just trying to sensationalize the story?

.
 
IMHO....

A gun is deadly force. Not something you use to shoot out tires with. Sure its a fine use for it, but....

Worst case scenario
*He could have killed one of the thieves
*Could have killed someone else if the bullet missed its intended target (Which it did)
*If he did hit the tire the thieves would have tried to run (You know they would have) and could have caused an accident
*He could have escalated the incident and thieves could have shot back

Best case scenario
*He hits the tire, the thieves surrender until police arrive.2 I phones are saved....what...300 bucks?


He shouldn't have shot.


-Dave
 
Even if he hit the tire, it isn't going to stop the bullet. That bullet is going to ricochet off the pavement or wheel or something and go who knows where. It isn't a safe shot to stop a car, especially over a couple of I-phones.

I can't believe he chased after the two guys. What an idiot. If he absolutely feel the need to chase after them he can't go any farther than following them and reporting location to police unless they are a threat to someone. Being a threat three minutes ago doesn't work.
 
Vigilante: One who takes or advocates the taking of law enforcement into one's own hands.

According to the dictionary he is.

For two iPhones?
 
So I assume that everyone here would vote for a conviction, if you were a member of the jury in his upcoming trial?

If so, how long should his sentence be?

.
 
You use a gun to defend your life or the life of another. Rarely if ever is deadly force appropriate to stop the theft of property. Firing a gun in this situation was the wrong answer.
 
So I assume that everyone here would vote for a conviction, if you were a member of the jury in his upcoming trial?

If so, how long should his sentence be?
Click to expand...

Yes. $100 fine and 6 months probation.
 
I would have no problem putting a felony on his record so he can never have a CCW or even own a firearm again.
Jail time and such should be minimum statutory sentence in my mind.
 
Last edited:
Did Witter show bad judgment? Was he reckless and irresponsible? Does he deserve to face charges?
Click to expand...

Yes, yes, and yes.

So I assume that everyone here would vote for a conviction, if you were a member of the jury in his upcoming trial?
Click to expand...

Yes.

If so, how long should his sentence be?
Click to expand...

I would favor a maximum fine and probation.
 
"At this point, he fired two rounds from his revolver, in an attempt to shoot out one of the front tires of the vehicle."

INCREDIBLY bad form on his part, and an act that only serves to give the rest of us (who hopefully exercise better situational judgment and restraint) a very bad image.
 
Under the circumstances, even a police officer would not be justified in using deadly force under Tennessee v. Garner. Shooting to stop petty thieves (really, shoplifters, if I read the story right) is irresponsible. He should have gotten their license # and provided as good a description of them and their vehicle as possible to police.

Don't know that he should be ineligible for further CCW, but he certainly used poor judgment in this situation.:(
 
He used terrible judgement and I certainly support the charges filed against him. As far as punishment, I'm okay with whatever is handed down.

Having a CCW license entitles you to act appropriately with your firearm and that's it. Attempting to shoot out tires doesn't fall into that it area.
 
Did Witter show bad judgment? Was he reckless and irresponsible? Does he deserve to face charges? Oregon toughened its CHL law in recent years, and now just a misdemeanor conviction will bar a person from getting a license. So if convicted, Witter will never be able to get a CHL again.
Click to expand...

Yes. Yes. Yes. Frankly, I think a strong argument can be made that Witter shouldn't have a CHL again if he doesn't realize that trying to shoot out tires with your pistol is an inappropriate use of deadly force in a situation that didn't call for it at all.

Witter (and CHL holders in general) are lucky as hell that one of those rounds that missed the tire didn't end up in some bystander - If you think the press is bad now, just imagine that.
 
"At this point, he fired two rounds from his revolver, in an attempt to shoot out one of the front tires of the vehicle."
Click to expand...

Facepalm8.gif
Methinks he's using Hollywood movie tactics here.

Revoke his CHL, fine him $250 and six months probation and force him to get chewed out by Clint Smith at Thunder Ranch. :p
 
The liberal local media in Portland has been having a field day with this story, with many labeling Witter as being a "Vigilante". They condemn him for being irresponsible, and not obeying the law.
Click to expand...

Certainly Witter was irresponsible and didn't obey the law, but he wasn't a vigilante.

Vigilante: One who takes or advocates the taking of law enforcement into one's own hands.

According to the dictionary he is.
Click to expand...

Taking the law into one's own hands is not the definition of vigilante. It is commonly misused in that manner, but that is not correct. By this definition, the acts of self defense and protecting one's own property would be considered vigilanteism, which they are not.

a member of a volunteer committee organized to suppress and punish crime summarily (as when the processes of law are viewed as inadequate)
Click to expand...

A Vigilantee is an unauthorized person who conduct a trial on the accused persons with or without collecting evidences or ascertaining the truth and confer punishment to the accused considering the depth of crime involved. A Vigilantee is not legally authorized person to do such trials and order punishments. They get the authority from social status, knowledge, wealth, reputation, physical power etc
Click to expand...
.


He was not trying to exact justice from the thieves without due process.

n owners have been split over this controversy, with some supporting Witter, but others saying that the Oregon CHL does not make a person a police officer, and that Witter went too far in chasing after the crooks, and trying to shoot the getaway car's tire out.
Click to expand...

If there are folks supporting what Witter did, maybe they shouldn't have CHLs either given they don't seem to understand the law. It is hard to make proper legal decisions when you don't understand the law.
 
Last edited:
"Having a CCW license entitles you to act appropriately with your firearm and that's it."

It doesn't entitle us to act appropriately.

It OBLIGATES us to act appropriately.
 
Idiot.

Fine him $500 - $1,000 and probation for 6 Months. Not a felonny because I do not believe it warrants loosing all rights to firearms ownership.

Loss of CHL for a minimum of 2 years and may only reapply after completion of a suitable course coverring the use of force. LFI1 comes to mind.
 
Taking the law into one's own hands is not the definition of vigilante. It is commonly misused in that manner, but that is not correct. By this definition, the acts of self defense and protecting one's own property would be considered vigilanteism, which they are not.
Click to expand...
I believe there is a significant diference between taking the law into one's own hands and taking law enforcement into one's own hands. They are two different things but I could be mistaken.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top